Psychological parasites

Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: anrwlias@netcom.com (A.X. Lias)
Subject: Psychological parasites
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:59:26 GMT
[ Article crossposted from alt.atheism ]
[ Author was Richard M. Weinapple ]
[ Posted on Mon, 9 Jan 1995 07:33:52 GMT ]
Alaric B. Williams (alaric@abwillms.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Well everyone, here's another case against religion....
: Life can exist in many forms. Once, we believed that the only life was
: biological; now, this view begins to change. Already we can simulate
: pseudolife with computers; genetic algorithms use breeding and mutation to
: evolve software.
: So what is a definition of life? Not that which breathes, moves, or needs
: nutrition, but that which evolves. Biological organisms do, genetic
: algorithms do, and more to the point, religions do.
: A religion is a lifeform. It feeds itself upon the minds of humanity; it
: mutates and breeds asexually by forming sects. Selection applies; succesful
: religions spread across the planet, feeble strains die out.
<snips>
This is perhaps a reasonable way of looking at religion.
I assume you are aware that it is by no means a new insight.
I believe that in its more general form it is called the
"meme" theory.
One can apply the meme theory (call it theory M) to absolutely
everything about us -- including theory M itself.
A few questions come up every time I see the meme theory,
and I wonder how you might approach them (I don't claim to
have good answers, but I do find the questions interesting):
Are you willing to face the possibility that theory M, to
which you have grown so attached, is in fact nothing but a
parasitic life-form which is using you to spread itself at
this very moment?
Consider your response to the previous paragraph. Is that
response anything more than theory M at work, triggering
intellectual and emotional reactions in order to preserve
its standing in your mind? Whatever your answer to this
question, how would you go about testing it?
Is there some symbiotic benefit which will now accrue to you
for having spread theory M itself to minds other than your own?
Is there some benefit which will now accrue to the other minds
which have now "converted" to it? (E.g., do we all now get to
go to intellectual "heaven?")
Is there any significant way in which theory M itself differs
from traditional religious beliefs? I.e., does it make specific
objective (mind-independent) predictions which we can test?
If all our ideas, beliefs and feelings are nothing but
parasitic life-forms, then who (or what) exactly are we?
Consider your deep conviction that you are a thinking,
feeling "self." Where does this belief come from? Is it
nothing but a meme, as well? (If so, everyone I know has
been infected.)
(Excuse me for asking all these questions. But it's not my
fault, my memetic parasites have been acting up again. ;-)
Richard
--
Andrew Lias | anrwlias@netcom.com | Finger for PGP key
*-------------------*-------------------------------*----------------------*
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain

Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 17:12:51 CST
From: <U58563@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Psychological parasites
A problem with applying theory M too literally is this: A meme can appear in
two separate minds, yet be interfertile with itself, indeed, the "same idea".
For instance, M itself appeared in my own mind as a thought that christianity
was one and the same with the AIDS virus, and "memetics" had not been well
publicized in 1984. By the time I ran into M, it appeared obvious. Of course
each of these creations was implicit in the whole notion of "computer viruses"
but this "speciation" event produced the same result in each case. So why
should I think of M as a parasitic infection when it can arise spontaneously?
It would appear that memes such as "science", religions, "government", and
so forth act in a species-like manner, while small submemes like a "new idea"
are really just subspecies genetic variations. If you think of memes as being
bacteria-like, capable of asexual reproduction to fill an environment,
undergoing selection to pick the best representatives, and conjugation
processes in which genes are transferred between sufficiently similar
individuals, or, rarely, between unrelated individuals, then this might come
closer. In which case M is a gene transferred from a "virus propagation and
evolution" meme to another. A parasite in the same sense as all genes are
parasites; but given favorable selection it is beneficial to the meme, hence
symbiotic, and the meme itself is beneficial (if in no other sense that it can
get a job in science!) to the host, so it is also symbiotic. But since "virus
propagation and evolution" is not really separate from the rest of science or
the rest of life, clearly these "bacteria" are all interconnected, and the
analogy has limits.
In fact, we have no really good memes coming close to the situation. We
classify bacteria according to a scheme meant for an ever-diverging tree of
incompatible species, yet all bacteria are at once incompatible, yet capable
of eating almost any DNA every once in a great while. We think of genes as
parasites and commensals, yet they are neither. In our papers we try to link
pathways of biochemistry, or tackle cell differentiation states, or deal with
neural networks artificial and natural --- all of which are fundamentally the
same --- yet our experiments are limited by technical problems and our
understanding of gene A ----> B or neuron A ---> (-) B and so forth is such a
preposterous oversimplification that it is amazing we can find anything.
In short, we have an environment in our mind that no meme has colonized --- is
this pleasant? no, we try to force them. If we are in fact the sum of all our
memes then in that case we are proof of the Gaean meme; as the whole of all
our memes we struggle to condition our environment and to stimulate it to be
filled!
Even if we could reach that understanding, we yet have the problem that
memes correspond to real "ideas" which are objects in the Platonic sense.
For instance, the Mandelbrot set or the Pythagorean theorem. Or the perfect
shape formed by placing dodecahedrons at the vertices of a tetrahedron and
bending into the fourth dimension. (this last does NOT exist in the "real
world", yet as I came up with it independently I can also be sure that it is
not an artificial construction of a single human mind, it is fundamental and
unchangeable as a consequence of the laws of geometry and mathematics; thus
it is real but not in the "real world") Though come to think of it, this
*might* have a correspondence in biology, for instance, the "tree" form has
been evolved over and over in so many places and times and species that it is
ludicrous to think of it as anything other than a Platonic idea come to life.

From: whuang@cco.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Psychological parasites
Date: 10 Jan 1995 19:05:56 GMT
anrwlias@netcom.com (A.X. Lias) writes:
Here's what I think...perhaps the experts here can do better...
>One can apply the meme theory (call it theory M) to absolutely
>everything about us -- including theory M itself.
>A few questions come up every time I see the meme theory,
>and I wonder how you might approach them (I don't claim to
>have good answers, but I do find the questions interesting):
>Are you willing to face the possibility that theory M, to
>which you have grown so attached, is in fact nothing but a
>parasitic life-form which is using you to spread itself at
>this very moment?
Yes. Considering that most my genetic information once came from parasitic
life forms, and also my mitochondria and numerous types of helpful
bacteria, I'd say it's not that bad a disease compared to some.
>Consider your response to the previous paragraph. Is that
>response anything more than theory M at work, triggering
>intellectual and emotional reactions in order to preserve
>its standing in your mind? Whatever your answer to this
>question, how would you go about testing it?
Testing any intellectual or emotional reaction is impossible for me,
as I do not know enough about how the brain works, and neither does
most of the scientific world. It would be difficult to analyze the
neurons that are participating in giving this answer I am currently
typing.
>Is there some symbiotic benefit which will now accrue to you
>for having spread theory M itself to minds other than your own?
>Is there some benefit which will now accrue to the other minds
>which have now "converted" to it? (E.g., do we all now get to
>go to intellectual "heaven?")
The greatest benefit in theory M (as opposed to other theories that
M talks about) is that M is willing to speak about itself in a very
frank way, losing little information. It is the closest to a self-
referential belief that we can accept, hence its appeal to intellectuals.
Even more frightening is the fact that belief in theory M gives you
treatment for the other spreading theories!
>Is there any significant way in which theory M itself differs
>from traditional religious beliefs? I.e., does it make specific
>objective (mind-independent) predictions which we can test?
See answer to last question.
>If all our ideas, beliefs and feelings are nothing but
>parasitic life-forms, then who (or what) exactly are we?
>Consider your deep conviction that you are a thinking,
>feeling "self." Where does this belief come from? Is it
>nothing but a meme, as well? (If so, everyone I know has
>been infected.)
Most people would not acknowledge their intellectual being as a meme,
but rather a large set of them in addition to a spreading organism,
perhaps something called the memzyme, which are objects created by other
memzymes for two purposes:
(1) to create other memzymes;
(2) to duplicate or alter memes.
I would say that my intellect is composed of many memes and memzymes.

From: ewill@wv.mentorg.com (Eric Williams @ PCB x5577)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pyschological Parasites.
Date: 12 Jan 1995 00:43:50 GMT
In article <3etija$n4@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, anon1fd0@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Name withheld by request) writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> Maybe the "Self" itself is a parasitic or symbiotic
|> entity?
|>
|> Perhaps the growth and persistence of a personality
|> is not unlike catching a cold that doesn't go away?
|> (
|>
I think not.
I am not an expert on network theory, so apologies in
advance and perhaps any experts out there can clarify
what I am trying to say.
This is my theory (though I suspect it's not original).
The mind and the brain are the same.
What makes you different from me is the neuron wiring,
chemical (im)balances, and suchlike in the skull casing
(as well as chemical/hormonal differences in the rest
of the physical body).
Everytime I or you experience something, the wiring
changes slightly (I am not sure if it's an actual
neuron reconnection, especially in later years, or
simply a change in the nerve sheathing -- i.e., memory).
This means the following (not intended to be an exclusive list):
1) No soul (mind) required, just gray matter.
2) One can't "switch" viewpoints with another (a la Freaky
Friday, Original StarTrek "Turnabout Intruder", and a host
of other sci-fi), because the wiring's different between
the two brains. One CAN transplant brains, though (although
I wouldn't think it would have a high degree of success
based on my (limited) knowledge of current medical technology).
3) Near-death experiences are simply dreams (not unlike
the "divide by zero" error I get when I shut off the PC --
look quick! There! :-).
4) When you're dead, you're dead, mostly because
of protein breakdowns in the brain after circulation
ceases.
5) Telepathy beyond a few inches is impossible because
of radio noise.
Admittedly, many of these conclusions aren't very verifiable and
are very subjective (which means it's not that good of
a scientific theory). Oh well, I tried.
See Isaac Asimov's
"The Weapon Too Dreadful To Use", a short story written
in his early years, for an interesting oppposing viewpoint.
There is also another Isaac Asimov short story which
postulates six intelligences in the universe, one of which
happens to be parasitic and gives us a shorter life span.
Anyone out there remember the title?)
Followups set to alt.memetics. (Maybe I should go get the
FAQ for that group? I can't seem to find it. ;-> )
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
eric_williams@mentorg.com
My views; I don't think my company will want 'em!
(At least not in this newsgroup...)
God is real, unless declared integer.
-- unknown

From: rainerd@informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Rainer Dickermann)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pyschological Parasites.
Date: 13 Jan 1995 10:00:33 GMT
ewill@wv.mentorg.com (Eric Williams @ PCB x5577) writes:
[...]
:I am not an expert on network theory, so apologies in
:advance and perhaps any experts out there can clarify
:what I am trying to say.
:This is my theory (though I suspect it's not original).
:The mind and the brain are the same.
:What makes you different from me is the neuron wiring,
:chemical (im)balances, and suchlike in the skull casing
:(as well as chemical/hormonal differences in the rest
:of the physical body).
Agreed, but we should keep in mind that it is a brain
that thinks about itself. This has some funny consequences.
:Everytime I or you experience something, the wiring
:changes slightly (I am not sure if it's an actual
:neuron reconnection, especially in later years, or
:simply a change in the nerve sheathing -- i.e., memory).
:This means the following (not intended to be an exclusive list):
:1) No soul (mind) required, just gray matter.
Or soul = mind = brain in function
:2) One can't "switch" viewpoints with another (a la Freaky
:Friday, Original StarTrek "Turnabout Intruder", and a host
:of other sci-fi), because the wiring's different between
:the two brains. One CAN transplant brains, though (although
:I wouldn't think it would have a high degree of success
:based on my (limited) knowledge of current medical technology).
I do not exactly understand what you mean with "switch viewpoints",
but identifying the brain with the conscious mind is the death of all
cartesian ideas of 'pointlike' events of existence in a 4D cartesian
system of coordinates. Furthermore 'personal identity' is an illusion
of a more or less continuous memory. If it would be possible to copy the
memory contents of your aunt into your memory you would become your aunt!
Of course 'you' would be very surprised to have a male body, suddently! :)
The memory seems not to be a seperated entity, but an intrinsic part
of the awareness process, so, changing your memory into that of your
aunt would indeed mean changing YOU into your aunt.
:3) Near-death experiences are simply dreams (not unlike
:the "divide by zero" error I get when I shut off the PC --
:look quick! There! :-).
That is an interesting question! If consciousness is based on a fundamental
awareness that is a process of synchronity with the processes in a piece
of the universe (the environment of that awareness), then couldn't it be
that these processes themselves represent a form of basic awareness?
What is really funny is that I see no way how the memory of such
experiences can show up in the brain.
So, I can imagine THAT 'someone' has such near-death experiences, but I can
NOT understand why this is remembered.
( I refer to near-death experiences that are a experiences of a total
perception of the environment (like a 360 degree view))
:4) When you're dead, you're dead, mostly because
:of protein breakdowns in the brain after circulation
:ceases.
Is it the proteins that are awareness, or is it an instance of a process
that is awareness? If the latter is the case, then death is only a loss
of the individual combination of memory contents!
:5) Telepathy beyond a few inches is impossible because
:of radio noise.
I would like to agree here, but because of the non-local nature of
awareness there could be some surprising effects!
:Admittedly, many of these conclusions aren't very verifiable and
:are very subjective (which means it's not that good of
:a scientific theory). Oh well, I tried.
It is a difficult subject, isn't it?
The brain trys to understand itself.
Rainer

From: sander3399@aol.com (SAnder3399)
Date: 22 Jan 1995 01:47:45 -0500
Just to point out that you are getting trapped into the old mind-body
dualism paradigm here. Let's say the mind is the brain in the body in an
environment, all acting on each other.
Secretarius

From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc de Hingh)
Date: 13 Jan 1995
Maybe <<
Maybe the "Self" itself is a parasitic or symbiotic
entity?
Perhaps the growth and persistence of a personality
is not unlike catching a cold that doesn't go away?
>> is itself a
parasitic or symbiotic entity? Perhaps this analogy between personality
growth and catching a cold is not unlike a cold that doesn't go away?
Maybe there are two parties, calling eachother parasites in order to advance
their own propagation.
Maybe the habit of calling memes 'parasites' is the only real parasite.

From: WAMAC@news.delphi.com (WAMAC@DELPHI.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pyschological Parasites.
Date: 15 Jan 1995 18:44:29 -0500
hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc de Hingh) writes:
>Maybe there are two parties, calling eachother parasites in order to advance
>their own propagation.
>Maybe the habit of calling memes 'parasites' is the only real parasite.
Cap'n, if this loop gets any tighter, the whole starboard converter
could go super-critical, and then where would we be?
Scotty